Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: KBA contained in area and intact forest is high
Evidence B:The proposed landscape is a highly significant area for biodiversity. The area encompasses forest ranges, waterways, mangroves and grassland that provide the ecological service of climate regulation through the high absorption and storage of carbon.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Dense biodiversity and large amount of intact forest exist. The Whiteman Ridge part of the area identified as KBA Logging has taken place in the project area. The area is under threat from logging.
Evidence B:Indeed, the online scoring tool map depicts a rate > 150 t/ha, which shows that the area is highly important for climate mitigation.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: 10 clans owned the area, but only 7 clans have agreed to set aside as a conservation area.
Evidence B:No data available in CI database. The EoI places emphasis on customary land ownership, clan’s social cohesion, population distribution and organisation. However, considering external sources of information, PNG faces a number of challenges including poor law and order and complex governance arrangements that are worth taking into account for the purpose of the project, which are not referred to in the EoI.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Clearly explained in the project document.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Logging has occurred, it is under further threat from such. Acquisition of neighbouring land has occurred.
Evidence B:Population of this area face several critical challenges regarding the access to forest resources while securing sustainable growth. Current threats to forest include logging concessions, forest fire and unsustainable harvesting practises such as: hunting, trapping, fishing and freshwater pollution, among others.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: 97% of PNG is owned by IPLC. Aligned with PNG Policy on Protected Areas, PNG REDD+ strategy, West New Britain Forestry Management Plan 2013-2018 (under review), 30 by 30 Climate Change Response RaodMap.
Evidence B:There is legal recognition of the ecological importance of the area and the communities living there. However, there is no provided evidence of active government support and engagement in the promotion of IPLC-led conservation initiatives.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: It is not clear from the proposal whether there is active support for this proposed project. However, the project is aligned to the National Government Policy on Protected Areas 2014 and the fact that 97% of land is customary owned and recognised by govt justifies this score.
Evidence B:The EoI presents a list of programmes by several national agencies in regard to the recognition of the area as a conservation area. These entities also endorse community-based approaches and engagement with carbon markets, but there is no description of substantial progress in this matter.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Live and Learn has conducted assessments and worked in the area previously, which has fostered a relationship with the IPLCs of the area. The project aims to build on past projects .
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Current project, Sustainable livelihoods for conservation and climate change mitigation in Papua New Guinea. This project is a sustainable land management project aimed at communities in central New Britain.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The project aims to strengthen the use of conservation tools by IPLCs to conserve natural resources in the project site.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: It covers capacity building, assessments, biodiversity and consultations with government and other stakeholders. It could have expounded on tradition ecological practises.
Evidence B:As noted in the EoI, the area is still in the process to become a legally recognised conservation area, hence the set of activities described in the project is very broad. Although the EoI has clear objectives which involve several stakeholders and challenges, some clarification regarding concrete activities would be required to accomplish this recognition. This is certainly an important step to move towards fostering IPLC-led conservation activities.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Threats and barriers to the project has not been well addressed.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The amount of results and activities seem appropriate for this level of funding.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: There is a high percentage of co-financing through UKAID.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Close to 100,000 hectares
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Cultural indicators missing. The impacts on culture in not addressed.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: This project relies on carbon credit for long term sustainability. The management of which will be presumably worked out during the project implementation.
Evidence B:The EoI proposes seeking opportunities for external stakeholders, particularly government agencies, to make ongoing contributions to conservation activities. However, given the context and the social cultural background of the area, this role of government intervention raises several issues which the EoI neither identifies nor specifies a way to address them.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: PNG finalised it NDCs in 2016. The EOI mentions the INDCs
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: It is unclear how gender inequalities will be addressed
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The project aims to have a legally recognised Conservation Area which will conserve biodiversity. However, the project has not articulated well government’s support for such a project.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Live and Learn is not an IPLC organisation.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Only the Kimbe Office of Live and Learn carries out IPLC work. This is near the project site.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The Project aims to work with the Nakau Programme which has projects in Fiji, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands. They help indigenous landowners sell carbon offsets and conservation credits instead of timber as a way to deliver community economic development (from Nakau website).
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: They have worked on 1 GEF project through UNDP.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Currently operating over USD 600,000 per year projects for next two years. Have also managed annual budgets up to 1 million.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: They did not addressed social safeguards.
Evidence B:NA